global warming article

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html
has what appears to be a good authoritative article including the cycles
of ice ages and brings significant doubt on whether man has much effect
on global warming.
Anybody know about this article and organization?
gr

gr wrote:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html
has what appears to be a good authoritative article including the cycles
of ice ages and brings significant doubt on whether man has much effect
on global warming.
Anybody know about this article and organization?
gr

Initial reactions to my reading. This agenda driven, non mainstream
(yet slick) web publication underestimates human contributions to
greenhouse gases and ignores very real measurements of increasing
surface and atmospheric temperatures. The first thing you should note,
it that this is not something that has appeared in a peer reviewed
scientific journal.

(For those of you unfamiliar with the scientific method, truths are
reached in a sort of conversation between theorists and
experimentalists. Results ( and claims are evaluated by a few
specialists who deem a work worthy of publication (or not.) Many fields
like elementary particle physics move so fast that the 'pre-print'
avenue becomes the primary method of disseminating results. Regardless,
of the media, scientists around the world try to reproduce or refute
measurements and claims. There are still and will continue to be
measurements made that will either refute or support the theory of
relativity. Only such theories that withstand repeated challenges
become accepted as truth. (Even is some measurement put a limitation on
general relativity, there is still a vast realm of the natural world
that is well described by it)

The skew in the satellite measurements of surface temps is because the
ocean covers 2/3 of the planet and because of its great mass and depth,
will lag behind changes in air temp. However, the atmospheric
temperature is responding much faster and is the more relevant measure
of global warming. There are satellite measurements of air temp verses
altitude which show dramatic increases in atmospheric temperature that
this 'publication' conveniently ignores. It is this practice of cherry
picking that is most abhorrent in this kind of diatribe.

Look at the graphs of CO2 and Temperature verses time (incorrectly
labeled in the article by the non scientific authors as CO2 verses
Temperature). You see an incredible spike in CO2 concentration over the
last 100 years going from 275 ppm to 370ppm. Looking at data over the
last 400,000 years, you will see in the past CO2 concentrations measured
from ice cores approaching this level. But that is not what concerns
me. It is the rapid rate of change we are currently experiencing.
Hundreds of thousands of years ago, the rate of change was gradual, over
millenia, while we are now shocking the planet with rates of change over
decades. That entire recent, rapid spike is almost entirely due to
human causes --- period. Eco systems cannot adapt. Yes, we will flood
out coast lines. Yes, we will change patterns of rainfall. And yes, we
will shut off the gulf stream, making global wide climatic changes which
will impact our ability to feed ourselves. True enough, Kyoto will do
little to stem the changes predicted over the next 50 years, that is
because much of what we have already done will continue to change the
climate, even if we stopped burning completely right now.

The other big deception of this article is to ignore the huge human
contribution to water vapor in the atmosphere. It is not enough to add
up the water evaporating from the reservoirs, sprinklers and steam leaks
(which I also think they have underestimated, given their obvious and
nefarious agenda), but also the increased amount of water vapor present
in our (human) heated atmosphere. There is a positive feedback between
increasing greenhouse gases increasing the temperature increasing the
amount of greenhouse gases ad infinitum.

At what point does the planet's ability to regulate itself collapse?
When does the climate suddenly cascade out of control, changing too fast
for life to adapt? This is the great unanswered question in this planet
wide experiment we will never have the chance to repeat. Once we have
finally destroyed the planets ability to support the wide varieties of
life it now support, we will have no chance to make real changes. This
becomes a problem for all flora and fauna. It seems likely that our
fellow mammals will not survive our incursions into their ecosystems
with or without global warming cascading out of control. But our
forests will certainly not be able to adapt to these rapid changes. Say
good bye to the stately sequoia. Forget about your mahogany and white
pine. Treasure oaks only in paintings.

This won't happen completely in our lifetime, but it is the legacy we
pass down through the ages. Another black spot on our history just like
the massive loss of relics from dawn of civilisation that were forever
lost by the intransigence of this neocon administration on its way out.
If there is a future for humanity, we will be judged by history.
Unless we change our ways, we will be looked at as the singularly
selfish and destructive people who knew enough to make changes but chose
instead to do nothing but chase the frivolous buck.

So, continue, at your peril, to get your science from rush limbaugh,
ignoring the entire field of legitimate climatologists who have
something relevant to say and have the expertise to back it up. Get
your news from fox which will lead you toward increasing ignorance and
satisfaction that changing nothing is precisely the correct action. (the
more you watch fox news, the more likely you are to hold these untruths:
Saddan Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks and global warming is a
figment of a few fringe and dishonored pseudo scientist who staggered by
greed(of all things!) are being chicken littles only to line their own
pockets)

Respectfully, Jim Farrell,
who does, as has been pointed out before, drives a car, too, chasing the
frivolous buck.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

After reading two sentences, it's clear that the author doesn't know
the difference between "its" and "it's". Hard to imagine the rest
being sound.

Brian

gr wrote:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html
has what appears to be a good authoritative article including the cycles
of ice ages and brings significant doubt on whether man has much effect
on global warming.
Anybody know about this article and organization?
gr

wrote:
After reading two sentences, it's clear that the author doesn't know
the difference between "its" and "it's". Hard to imagine the rest
being sound.

Brian


typos galore from this writer, too. I just noticed i wrote 'it' where
obviously, I meant 'is.' Not that I don't know the difference.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----